The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-09
THE cryrL-sERvrcE Law.

THE CIyIL-SERvICE Law.
OHieial Announcements Concerning Appoint-
ments and Removals from Office
WASHINGTON. Sept. s-Acting-P President
Oberly, for the United States Civil-service Com
mission, has written tbs following important
letter to Mr.. Charles w. Rowland chairman
of the Civil-service Board of Examiners for the
Cincinnati post-oice. constituting certain sections
OF the Civ-service law and rules relating to
the power of appointing officers to make re-
movas:
WASHINGTON. Sept z. 1887.
''Dear Sir-Yours of the goth uitimo has been
received. You say:
'.I have read Your report the Philadelphia
postofice and have noted your conclusions
thereon. In conversation with the postmaster to-
day TO the power of removal of carriers. at
tention is called to page twentyone whers you neme
the limitations VI the power of removal Are we
question, remove a carrier for the carses
Grated by you2 The postmaster informs that he has
orney here to the eff. ct that he
riers and e'erks well. except for the
page twenty-one of the PniIadephia report.
THAT every carrier and clerk in the Cincin-
natl postofficc might be legally removed for
cause is a proposition which you need in
formation. IL is therefore concluded that you
wish to know whether, in the opinion of the
commission. efficient carriers and clerks OF good
reasous-hecause they do not agree in politics
with the postmaster The com misson has here
tofore stated. and now repeats. that the power
of removal 10 unrestricted, except that
moval may not be legally made for any one OF
the following causes:
..Firsr-Because a person in the service has
refused to contribute to political fund or for .
political purpose.
''Second-Because person has refused to
render Political service.
''Third-Because a person has refused to per-
nit the appointing officer or any other person
in the civil ice TO coerce his political action.
For any other cause any person In the civil
service may bs removed legally, ana person
illegally removed for any of the causes named
cannot, under any provision OF the civil-service
act. demand restoration. If. then. an appoint
ing officer were to remove one OF Els subordin-
ates for any Of the reasons mentioned among
the inhbtions Of removal, what penalty
could be inflicted upon hims Cisil.service
rule "a provides that every violation
of any of the sections of ths cvil-service act
lating political assessments shall be good
violation; and Section Is ef that act provides
that sany person who shall be guilty OF violating
any provision Of the four foregoing sections SHALL
on con eviction thereof, he punished by fine not
exeeadine 50. 900. by imprisopme for
not exceeding three years, or by euch fine
and imprisonment BOTH If the words four
foregoing aections' refer to the four sections
next preceding the fifteenth section. an appoint
ing officer might bs punished by both fine and
imprisonment for removing subordinate bs-
cause he refused to contribute money to polit-
ical fund or for political purpose But
penalty is prescribed by the act for
violation of either the second third
inhibition upon removals; and appointing
officer might therefore, without fear of either
fine or IMPRISONMENT violate the law by dis
missing subordinates because they have refused
tc render political service, or because they have
refused to permit the appointing officer or other
person in the civiservice to coerce their politi-
cal action. It is to be presumed however. that
no appointing officer would w willingly s violate
could not be punished criminally for the viola
ton. an appointing officer were TO violate the
remova-inhibiting provisions in question it may
be safe to conclude that he would not be per-
mitted to remain in office No officer should be
continued in the enforcement of law any OF
the provisions OF which he himself may have
willingly violated
I'm this view it becomes important
to determine whether a removal made
for partisan reason falls under the
inhibit,ons that person in the public
service shall not be removed; first, because he
has refused to render political service; or,
second, because hs has refused to be coefced in
his political action. One of the eight funda-
m tai provisions of the civil-service rules, as
prescribed by the civil-service act. is that no
person in the public service is for that reason
under any obligation TO render any political
SERVICE and that he will not be removed
otherwise prejudced for refusing to do so. Rule
provides that question in any examination
or proceeding by or under the commission
examiners shall call for the expression or dis
closure of any political opinion afiilation, and
if such affiliation be known, no discrimination
shall be made by reason thereof by the examin-
ers, the commission the appointing power
From these provisions of the law and rules it Is
concluded
.'Firsi-That it is unlawful to ask appli-
cant for appoin:men under Thea civil-service
law. TO divulge his political opinions or affilia-
tions.
..Second-That if the appointing officer ascer-
tain in any way what the political opinions
or affiliations of any applicant for appointment
il is unlawful in him to therefore either dlscrim-
mate IN the applicants favor or against him -
that it is unlawful in the appointing officer to
appoint eig bls for the reason that he Is or
is Democrat or TO refuse TO appoint an
eligible for the reason that he is or is not Re-
publican, ard vice versa.
..Thrd-That it is unlawful to remove any
person from the public service for refusing to
render political service
..Tne law. fairly construed is that entrance to
the classified civil service shall be upon the
merit of the applicant, without regard TO his po-
litcal opinions affiliations. and that continu-
anee in the service shall he upon the employees
merit. without regard TO his political opinions
or affiliations. Therefore, the appointing officer
who appoints or refuses TO appoint an applicant
because the applicant does or does not entertain
certain political opinions, violates the law ana
an appointing officer who removes an employe
because the employe refuses to render political
service in accordance with the wishes of the ap
pointing officer--because he Is not political
partisan OF the appointing oficer-also violates
the law.
'.Ent~rtainine these views, the commission
replies to Your question by saving that, In the
opinion of the commission, the postmaster at
Cincinnati cannot lawfully remove any carrier
or clerk for the reason that the carrier or clerk
belongs to the political party TO which the post
naster is opposed. That be can lawfully remove
no person from the classified postal service at
except for some other .cause thar the
EMPLOYEES political opinions or affiliations"
THE CHINESE GRANT